Theft is the ONLY harm. Taking a life, taking another’s liberty, taking the fruits of another’s labor, taking what you have no right to… it all boils down to theft.
I agree that this guy’s thefts were mostly harmless, but to say theft isn’t a harm is ridiculous.
“Taking a life” is an euphemism for “killing”. It’s not like you get your victim’s remaining lifespan when you kill them. Life isn’t taken, it is destroyed.
Second, if you’re going to stretch the word Theft to include murder and kidnapping/imprisonment, we’re both wasting time because we aren’t using the same language at all. Just let me know you’re standing on that principle and I won’t bother you again.
That being said, with the normal usage of Theft, it really depends on what you take from whom, and how much as to whether harm is done.
Secondary to that, even when there is harm from theft, it can still be justified. Me stealing a medication from a pharmacy certainly costs someone something, but if that’s the last ditch option when all else has failed, is it really a situation where the harm of the theft outweighs the harm of the broken society that made it necessary? While two wrongs don’t make a right, some wrongs preclude right in the first place.
In that scenario, the harm is so heavily distributed via tax breaks and insurances that it might even be a benefit overall since without some theft as a reason to exist, there’s entire industries that wouldn’t exist. The individual theft is still a harm tp some link in the chain, but the chain itself is not harmed at all.
Stepping back even further, what about stealing back? I paid taxes and monies into a broken system, thus me stealing necessary medication could be simply taking back what was taken from me in bad faith. Restitutional theft ain’t really theft, in other words.
Again, I never said theft was never harmful, I said it isn’t inherently harmful.
No, you said theft wasn’t “a certain harm” (which is weird phrasing by the way).
Inherently, certainly, or whatever qualification you want to put on it, it doesn’t matter because the rest of your novella is just a bunch of bullshit wherein you try to convince me that a small amount of harm, or justifiable harm, isn’t actually harm. Get real.
His take on the broken window fallacy is pretty hilarious. “Theft can be good because it might create jobs in the woefully underfunded insurance industry! Won’t somebody please think of the insurers?!”
Not so.
Theft in and of itself isn’t a certain harm.
And stealing food isn’t a crime.
Theft is the ONLY harm. Taking a life, taking another’s liberty, taking the fruits of another’s labor, taking what you have no right to… it all boils down to theft.
I agree that this guy’s thefts were mostly harmless, but to say theft isn’t a harm is ridiculous.
“Taking a life” is an euphemism for “killing”. It’s not like you get your victim’s remaining lifespan when you kill them. Life isn’t taken, it is destroyed.
Yeah no, murder doesn’t “boil down to theft”. Murder is murder.
I said it wasn’t inherently harmful.
Second, if you’re going to stretch the word Theft to include murder and kidnapping/imprisonment, we’re both wasting time because we aren’t using the same language at all. Just let me know you’re standing on that principle and I won’t bother you again.
That being said, with the normal usage of Theft, it really depends on what you take from whom, and how much as to whether harm is done.
Secondary to that, even when there is harm from theft, it can still be justified. Me stealing a medication from a pharmacy certainly costs someone something, but if that’s the last ditch option when all else has failed, is it really a situation where the harm of the theft outweighs the harm of the broken society that made it necessary? While two wrongs don’t make a right, some wrongs preclude right in the first place.
In that scenario, the harm is so heavily distributed via tax breaks and insurances that it might even be a benefit overall since without some theft as a reason to exist, there’s entire industries that wouldn’t exist. The individual theft is still a harm tp some link in the chain, but the chain itself is not harmed at all.
Stepping back even further, what about stealing back? I paid taxes and monies into a broken system, thus me stealing necessary medication could be simply taking back what was taken from me in bad faith. Restitutional theft ain’t really theft, in other words.
Again, I never said theft was never harmful, I said it isn’t inherently harmful.
No, you said theft wasn’t “a certain harm” (which is weird phrasing by the way).
Inherently, certainly, or whatever qualification you want to put on it, it doesn’t matter because the rest of your novella is just a bunch of bullshit wherein you try to convince me that a small amount of harm, or justifiable harm, isn’t actually harm. Get real.
Damn, you went from zero to asshole in one comment. Sorry you wasted my time.
The way you twist the meaning of the word in order to rationalize your offense is pretty disgusting
If you can rationalize that, you could rationalize anything
What? How are they twisting the word, the person they replied to said murder was a form of theft.
His take on the broken window fallacy is pretty hilarious. “Theft can be good because it might create jobs in the woefully underfunded insurance industry! Won’t somebody please think of the insurers?!”